Shame-faced return for VJM

Mallya, 62, who fled to Britain in 2016, owes Indian banks around Rs 9,000 crore

IN LONDON In less than a minute after Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot took her seat in court number 1 at the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, she made it clear that she was convinced fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya can be extradited to India.

That was exactly 12.12 pm (GMT), a good two hours after the case was scheduled to be heard, but got deferred. In the next 25 minutes, the judge went on to lay the contours of the judgment, which will leave a very different image of India and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the recent history of extradition cases.

Mallya was facing three-fold allegations presented by India — conspiracy to defraud, false representation to make a gain for himself, and a subsequent charge of money laundering added by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The court found a prima facie case against the businessman and to top it, she also spelled out that the banks had wrongfully advanced loan to Kingfisher. Adding some colour to the long and detailed judgment, the chief magistrate remarked that Mallya “charmed” and “cajoled” banks into giving him loans and had impressed bank officials by his “flashy, glamourous and billionaire playboy” image.

Outlining how Mallya went on to frustrate India’s efforts to get the funds back, the judge termed his action to conceal $40 million paid to him after the sale of United Breweries to Diageo as “most questionable”. On the issue of brand valuation, something which was discussed very intensely during the trial, the court found that Kingfisher had suppressed the less favourable valuation of the brand and instead only shared the one which had given a significantly higher amount of valuation.

In a testimony to the meticulous paperwork by the CBI and ED, the judge also went into a detailed dissection of Mallya’s conduct after the loans were forwarded.

During the trial, CPS lawyer Mark Summers had highlighted a “washing machine activity” in describing Mallya’s effort to launder money from one account to another and from one jurisdiction to another.

The judge found the Formula 1racing team and a corporate jet for his personal use as “two vanity projects” where the “round robin” (Mallya) diverted loan funds meant for Kingfisher. “There is clear evidence of dispersal and misapplication of the loan funds and I find a prima facie case the (sic) Dr Mallya was involved in a conspiracy to launder money,” notes the judgment.

But perhaps the biggest validation for India’s efforts came in the judge’s remarks relating to prison conditions.

The state of the Arthur Road Jail had seen long-drawn and heated arguments between the defence and the prosecution, but in very unambiguous terms, the judge held that the assurances and the evidence provided by India on the jail conditions show that Mallya’s human rights would not be breached.

Mallya will be reportedly lodged in the high-security barrack located in a two-storey building inside the prison complex, which also housed 26/11 Mumbai attack terrorist Mohammad Ajmal Kasab. Barrack 12 was specially constructed for Kasab, and also housed former deputy chief minister Chhagan Bhujbal at one point.

After the defence raised objections about jail conditions, the state government refurbished the cell with new tiles, a fresh coat of plaster and paint along with equipping it with a new hand spray and commode.

An official attached to the Jails department told Mirror, “The cell has a CCTV cover and four constables will be posted to monitor Mallya’s movements.”

Negating assertions made by the defence and some of the witnesses that the case against Mallya was politically motivated and that the CBI and by extension courts in India were under pressure to act against him, the judgment unequivocally vouched for the independence of the judiciary.

The significance of the judgment will not be lost in the UK legal system, which faces a plethora of extradition cases from all over the world.

For a very long time, extradition requests from India were not seen in favourable terms largely due to incomplete or shoddy paperwork. But as this judgment shows, India has also been able to prove not just prima facie case against Mallya but also that his human rights would not be breached if he was lodged in an Indian jail.

Mallya entered the courtroom with his long-time partner Pinky Lalwani. They sat next to each other in the public gallery as his case was deferred.

Both were visibly tensed. As has been the routine, Lalwani was armed with a bottle of water for Mallya, who the judge remarked, has been on medication due to health issues.

Mallya said he was disappointed, but his team will study the judgment and will go for an appeal.

“Dr Mallya will be carefully considering the court’s judgment and, therefore, it would not be appropriate to make any further comment at this time,” said Anand Doobay, Mallya’s solicitor.

WITH INPUTS BY YOGESH NAIK

What next?

■ The case will now go to UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid. He has two months to arrive at a decision. If he agrees with the court verdict, Mallya can appeal in the High Court and ultimately the Supreme Court. According to British law, Mallya will have 14 days to make an application for permission to appeal the judgment.

■ If Javid disregards the extradition ruling, the crown prosecution can knock on the doors of the HC and then the SC.

■ These proceedings can stretch on for 18 months or more, warn legal experts.

■ If Javid agrees with the court ruling and Mallya does not file an appeal, then he must be extradited from the UK within 28 days of the home secretaryfs order, says UK-based legal expert Pavani Reddy.

Last-ditch attempt

Prior to the verdict, Mallya had outside the court sought to disprove the narrative that he had “stolen” money. He said his offer to repay the principal amount to the Indian banks was “not bogus”. “My settlement offer is made before the Karnataka High Court. It is not related to this extradition trial. Nobody disrespects a court of law by making a bogus offer. The assets have been attached by the ED, so they cannot be bogus assets,” he said. He claimed he had more than enough to pay everybody. The 62-year-old had contested his extradition on the grounds that the case was “politically motivated” and that the loans he took sought to keep his nowdefunct Kingfisher Airlines afloat. “I have offered to repay 100 per cent of the principal amount to them. Please take it,” he had tweeted last week.

Recent Messages ()

Please rate before posting your Review

OR PROCEED WITHOUT REGISTRATION

Share on Twitter

SIGN IN WITH

Refrain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks, name calling or inciting hatred against any community. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines by marking them offensive. Let's work together to keep the conversation civil.